May 16, 2007

Giuliani started off with a very brief statement about the debate: Fox News handled it well by giving the candidates more time to answer. (I note the implication that maybe his problems in the previous debate were the fault of the format. Do the format right, and he'll excel.) He says that the Democrats ought to give Fox a chance.

The first question is from Jennifer Rubin of ABC News. What does he think of the new vote in the Senate in which all the Democrats are now for cutting off money for troops? Giuliani says it's interesting, since they've taken different positions in the past. "They don't get it," he says. They don't understand "the nature of the Islamist threat." They'll never even say "Islamist terrorism threat" when they talk about terrorism: "They can't get the words out."

Blake Dvorak of Real Clear Politics asks why he's "leveling off" or falling in the polls. Giuliani immediately says "I don't look at polls." Then he adds that he did notice that the Wall Street Journal had him at 38%, only one point below where he was before. He wheel spins a moment saying he's "getting his message out," then moves on to a better spin: the states. (I note: there's way too much talk about overall percentages when the presidency is won on a state-by-state level.) He says he's got a large lead in many -- or he might have said "most" -- states, and he's the only candidate who is competitive in all states.

Next is Philip Klein of the American Spectator who asks about Palestinian violence. Giuliani gives a solid answer, but I did not take notes at this point.

Jim Garrity (sp?) of National Review asks whether Ron Paul should be included in the Republican debates. Giuliani says that what Paul said about 9/11 last night is something he'd have been surprised to hear anyone say even in the Democratic debate. Giuliani seemed to know that some people are talking about whether he characterized Paul's comment fairly last night when he lit into him, because he said he listened to it again and that there was "tremendous confusion in what [Paul] was saying." Paul said that because of our attacks on Saddam, al Qaeda wanted to kill us. That didn't make sense. Giuliani emphasized that he has been studying Islam and Islamic terrorism since the 1970s when he was in the Ford administration, and he knows that the reason they hate us is because of our freedom, notably our freedom of religion and the freedom for women.

Matt Lewis of Townhall.com asks him about what he said about torture in the debate: You seemed to say that in the worse case scenario, we should do whatever is necessary. Giuliani stressed the importance of seeing his comments within the hypothetical posed at the debate: we've captured someone who has knowledge of an impending terrorist attack that would kill thousands of Americans. He said that the question was about the definition of torture as contrasted with "enhanced techniques" or "aggressive techniques." His view is that we should figure out exactly where the line is and go right up to it. He specified that was more than McCain was willing to do.

Next was Skip Murphy of GraniteGrok, who invited Giuliani to talk about the effect of Islamic values on American culture, for example, the way Muslim cab drivers want to be able to refuse service to passengers who are carrying alcohol. Giuliani declined the invitation and used this segment to talk about how bad it is that in Palestine they're using a Mickey Mouse character to try to teach kids to kill and how the documentary "Obsession" shows what is being taught to young people.

Time for the last question -- which meant no question for me -- and it was from Bill Bradley of New West Notes. He went back to the question of defining the distinction between torture and "enhanced techniques." Giuliani repeated that it's important for the government to look at the specific techniques -- some of which are "too gory even to discuss" in the public debate -- and to categorize them. If it's torture, don't do it. He said he would not stress that the reason we avoid torture is to inspire our enemies to avoid torture. (I note: McCain states that reason.) We would avoid torture to be true to our principles and because it's the right thing to do.

That's it. I thought he was clear and substantive. He was not evasive except in not responding to Murphy's question. Good job.

ADDED: Watching the debate, I see the McCain also expressed the principled position on torture:

When I was in Vietnam, one of the things that sustained us, as we went -- underwent torture ourselves, is the knowledge that if we had our positions reversed and we were the captors, we would not impose that kind of treatment on them.

It's not about the terrorists, it's about us. It's about what kind of country we are.

I have heard him take the pragmatic position, and part of his statement last night was pragmatic. He invoked three key pragmatic arguments:

1. "[W]e could never gain as much we would gain from that torture as we lose in world opinion." [That is: It hurts our reputation.]

2. "The more physical pain you inflict on someone, the more they're going to tell you what they think you want to know." [That is: It's not effective.]

3. "If we do it, what happens to our military people when they're captured?" [That is: It encourages the enemy to torture our people.]

I remembered these pragmatic arguments, but I can see McCain made the principled argument too. I want to see the principled argument, but I don't object to combining it with pragmatic arguments. Nevertheless, in this case, the pragmatic arguments -- especially #3 -- are not that believable.

MORE: This was billed as a blogger conference call, but it was heavily weighted with mainstream media. I mean: ABC News?? If you've got some mainstream reporters doing some of their writing in the blog format at an MSM site, those aren't really bloggers in the meaningful sense of the word. Looking back, I'm annoyed that I got lost in the queue behind so many MSM reporters. If the candidate really wants to open himself to the bloggers, he should do conference calls that do not include mainstream reporters.

AND: You're misreading me if you think I'm saying the MSM bloggers were given priority. It was a matter of punching in a number to indicate you want to ask a question, and I didn't try to get in quickly.

"the reason they hate us is because of our freedom, notably our freedom of religion and the freedom for women"

Does anyone really think that's an important part of why 9/11 happened? I was a little surprised to hear Giuliani say that. Not that they respect our freedoms, of course. They don't. But that's not what brought on the attacks. Commenters?

"If it's torture, don't do it. He said he would not stress that the reason we avoid torture is to inspire our enemies to avoid torture. (I note: McCain states that reason.) We would avoid torture to be true to our principles and because it's the right thing to do."

Yes, that's absolutely true. There is no evidence our enemies at any time since the First World War followed any international conventions regarding the laws of warfare, treatment of captured soldiers and civilian populations. They will mistreat and torture our soldiers (and civilians) regardless of anything we do; we don't torture because it is contrary to our values. In addition, I strongly appreciate his willingness to draw a long overdue distinction between "coercive techniques" and torture. Not all coercive techniques, by a long shot, are torture; on this we’ve let the ignorati dictate the terms of debate once more.

You really think that's why they attacked? My sense is that al-Qaeda hates the corrupt, authoritarian Middle Eastern governments (e.g Saudi Arabia) as much as, if not more than, they hate us, and it's certainly not due to their respect for freedom. One of the main reasons they hate us, in fact, is our support for those Middle Eastern governments. No?

ricpic said... Giuliani's a RINO. The more he fine tunes his answers - to questions about abortion, immigration, the gay agenda, gun rights - the more he'll lose the Republican base.

I think you underestimate the base. The Republicans will be fighting the legacy of 8 years of a man who was a true believer who refused to change his mind when confronted with changing situations or emerging new facts.

And has to be dragged kicking and screaming to accept a reality his mind has not been able to wrap itself around.

Reagan was a RINO. So are any competent executive decision-makers(like Rudy, Schwartzenegger, and Romney). Reagan signed the nations most liberal abortion law because he was not going to oppose the people of California, then in 8 years of his Presidency, regularly compromised and ate some of Tip O'Neill's shit sandwiches, stayed off abortion other than making noble-sounding speeches about it - so he could have the political capital and get some bipartisan support to do the important things.

I don't want a President who says "I learned and believe with conviction all the facts and sides of issues I needed 40 years ago and I haven't waivered or flip-flopped one bit on my unshakable convictions." A rigid Dubya-like mind am a terrible, terrible thing to be done wasted on a Presidency.

Romney succeeded in business because he would take a business plan and vet it and vet it and readily admit any error or mistake - then tear apart his business plan and come up with something better.Arnold by customizing his service to what California voters wanted, and completely escaping the tidal wave that turned out corrupt, rigid Republican ideologues.

Rudy also excelled by picking his fights. He knew what was possible and not in NYC. Is the allegation he did not govern like an evangelical mayor of 50,000 population Podunk Arkansas so he can't be a "True Republican"???

Well, surprise, surprise! If the True Believer in being "More Reagan than Reagan" ever was is the litmus test, the Republicans will narrow their base so badly they will be out of power a long time until they adapt.

Dewave said..."He says that the Democrats ought to give Fox a chance. Noooo I much prefer it if they stay inside their little insular bubble."

After six plus years of this administration, screwing up literally everything they've ever touched, never admitting they've done anything wrong, standing firm on why we went into Iraq, WMD, Gonzales, Libby, Rove, Rummy, Wolfie, etc...and you think the Democrats are "inside" a bubble??

Well, Rudy needs to do something to reverse the momentum. Last month's Zogby Iowa poll had him comfortably ahead of John McCain and Mitt Romney, but today's poll shows him losing a quarter of his support and dropping into a second place tie, with all three within a one point range in Iowa.

The Emperor said... "the reason they hate us is because of our freedom, notably our freedom of religion and the freedom for women"

Does anyone really think that's an important part of why 9/11 happened? I was a little surprised to hear Giuliani say that. Not that they respect our freedoms, of course. They don't. But that's not what brought on the attacks. Commenters?

Ron Paul was actually being thoughtful and reflecting that in the nearly 6 years since 9/11 we have learned quite a bit about why radical Islam is attacking. The insipid early "they hate us for our freedoms" crap was wrong. They kill Russians, Indonesians, Indians, fellow Muslims in dictatorships with equal vigor. They kill Israelis because of lost lands and freedoms.

They could give a crap about one nation's constitution.

What we do know from the Fatwas issued is that the lethal hatred of radical ISlam:

1. Comes straight from Koranic instructions. Radical ISlamists are not considered apostates by other Muslims. At best, they see radical ISlamists engaged in "unecessary Jihad" endangering brother Muslims.

2. Our actions overseas do affect Islam. Polling conducted after 9/11 and Iraq show the dislike is over the long-time invading their lands with troops and our "purient" culture.

3. Kneejerk support of Zionist expansion and settlement and continued oppression of Palestinians.

4. Because we are infidels.

5. Because of increased anger and alienation that while they believe ferverently in the "Islamic system" and it's infallibility - they see that the modern world is more prosperous, better run, leaving the "lands under Allah" behind, and the dichotomy between belief and reality is driving them bonkers.

"They hate us for our freedoms!" was a ludicrous statement after 9/11. It was a way to duck more substantive and in many ways more fearsome and irreconcilable differences between Islam and the rest of the world. It was a way to deny piles of dead Americans happened in part because of our ME policies.It caused us also to come up with myths of the "vast, vast sea of moderate Islamists that only a few thousand Al Qaeda fighters under the direct control of the CEO of Jihad, bin Laden, operates in....with myths that most Muslims want freedom of religion and churches springing up in their lands...and all ache, just ache, for "women to cast off their burquas".

Lots of immediate post 9/11 stupid stuff was said by Bush, Rudy, and others ignorant of the nature of Islam or the multiplicity of friction points that began 1400 years ago and have been largely unresolved and added to with new beefs as the world modernized.

The pity is some are still locked in those misinformed notions of a single guy causing all terror, that all but a few Muslims disagree, that our policies had nothing to do with it, and it all simply happened because the CEO of All Terror was puttering about his cave and found a copy of the Bill of Rights of some distant land and hated it so much he decided to attack because no other radical Muslim, even visitors in the past 200 years to America or who read books -- had any clue such "freedoms" existed.

Ron Paul reflected at least one Republican was on the stage who has listened and learned.

I put 90% of the blame with the Islamoids. But we HAVE, as the West, as Russia, as Asian and Latin and so on participants in a global economy - poured gasoline on the fire.

"You really think that's why they attacked? My sense is that al-Qaeda hates the corrupt, authoritarian Middle Eastern governments (e.g Saudi Arabia) as much as, if not more than, they hate us, and it's certainly not due to their respect for freedom. One of the main reasons they hate us, in fact, is our support for those Middle Eastern governments. No?"

That was not your first question. Your first question was, "Does anyone really think that's an important part of why 9/11 happened?", to which you have my answer.

Regarding your second question, after deconstructing it, it seems you're raising several points, none of which I think (based upon its numerous manifestos) are consistent with al Qaeda's view of itself. They most decidedly aren't some proto-Marxist people's liberation movement, and viewing them through that lens only distorts matters more so.

First, I think al Qaeda and you would have different ideas as to what is "corruption.” I think they think of it in terms relative to fundamental Islam (deviations from sharia, for example), not the economic way in which I think you to mean (although they probably have side issues with that as well). As for “authoritarian,” all evidence to date suggests al Qaeda would be even more so than the governments they seek to displace, although they undoubtedly dislike authoritarian measures directed against their existence. And yes, our general support for these governments, especially as a hedge against militant Islamic fascism, certainly angers them.

As do our general strength, wealth, and the manifestations of our freedoms. To them, we are the fountainhead of all the spiritual corruption they oppose. They also see in this same spiritual corruption tremendous physical and moral weakness (as did Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, the Tojo government, Mao, and Minh before them), leading them to believe we were ripe for defeat.

As of now, it's uncertain if they'll be right where the others before were wrong.

Fen,I know of no Democrat who's "afraid" of anything Hume says.The man is so full of himself I think he someday literally explode.

The reason Democrats are not taking part in Fox's debates is that Fox is nothing more than an extension of the Bush White House and has proven itself to be so overtly biased in their reporting and commentary they're not worth the effort.

When a news network and it's contributors make up a group that includes: Hannity, O'Reilly, Hume, Geraldo, Coulter, Ingrahm, Gibson, Smith, Cavuto, and of course "Fox and Friends...this is what happens.

After six plus years of this administration, screwing up literally everything they've ever touched, never admitting they've done anything wrong, standing firm on why we went into Iraq, WMD, Gonzales, Libby, Rove, Rummy, Wolfie, etc...and you think the Democrats are "inside" a bubble??

You do know that what you said makes no sense, right? Or are you that logically deficient? Bush could be the Bubble Fairy and it wouldn't make any difference whether or not Democrats live in a little bubble.

The reason Democrats are not taking part in Fox's debates is that Fox is nothing more than an extension of the Bush White House and has proven itself to be so overtly biased in their reporting and commentary they're not worth the effort.

That line of reasoning doesn't stand up, and you know it. It's 'too much of an effort' for the democrats to face potentially critical media members?

And yet we're supposed to believe they'll have the guts to go after people trying to kill us?

Please.

But hey, not like I'm complaining: Fox reaches far more people than any of the network news shows. It's the dems loss if they don't take advantage of the fact to appeal to the hearts and minds of redstate voters, even *assuming* that everyone who watches FOX is a right winger.

Republicans are a lot more politically savvy: they are willing to appear on media outlets that are nothing more than propaganda shills for the democrat party, and religiously echo dem talking points (when they're not echoing terrorist talking points)

Fen,You can whine and blather on all you want, but anybody who actually reads newspapers, periodicals and books knows what Fox is...and also knows who owns the company. And anybody who's ever watched Hannity or O'Reilly knows it's impossible to get a word in edgewise, much less respond to their inane questions.

*Why not further your point by naming all of the independent or liberal reporters and commentary people who work for Fox News.

Your continued support of Bush and his administration betrays your ignorance of logic, fact and reality.

Bush lives in a "bubble" of self delusion...unless of course, YOU also believe we invaded Iraq because of a worldwide threat via Saddam or that we wanted to establish a new democracy or that the aluminum tubes were for missiles or that the yellow cake claim was true or that there were chemical wagons, or potential mushroom clouds or that Saddam had something to do with 9/11 or that Gonzales is doing a great job, or that Brownie was doing a great job, or that Plame wasn't outed by his administration or that we're going to "win" in Iraq, etc.

As for Fox News, I repeat: The reason the Democrats don't want to have anything to do with them is exactly as I said in another post to Fen: Hannity, O'Reilly, Hume, Geraldo, Coulter, Ingrahm, Gibson, Smith, Cavuto, etc.

These aren't news people, they're right wing demagogues who merely push the Bush administration and right wing talking points every night of the week.

Oh, and by the way when you say: "Fox reaches far more people than any of the network news shows"...you're dreaming.

Dewave: "Dems live in a bubble"Lucky: "Dems can't possibly live in a bubble, because Bush does"

Hint: there are more than enough bubbles to go around.

As for Fox News, I repeat: The reason the Democrats don't want to have anything to do with them is exactly as I said in another post to Fen: Hannity, O'Reilly, Hume, Geraldo, Coulter, Ingrahm, Gibson, Smith, Cavuto, etc

Yes, we *know*. The dems are scared of facing media personalities who are verbally critical of them. I'm not terribly impressed at their rationale.

The world is full of people who will put their own spin on what you do and say mean things about you: if the dems can't handle that, they sure as hell aren't up to combatting terrorism.

Refusing to engage with people because they have an opposing viewpoint isn't leadership, it's cowardice.

That is not correct...and if you would like to wager a few bucks...bring it on...or better yet...show us the numbers.

Oh, and the reason I mentioned pinhead O'Reilly? Well, because he has the highest rated show on Fox...and if you compare it to ABC News...he reaches about 1/4 the audience...duh.

As for Bush's bubble: Like I said before: If all you're going to do is blather on about the Democrats, not wanting to do the Fox Debate or face the "personalities" as you call them...what's the point? We already know that

Why not tell me what Bush has done right? Tell me why he continues to defend Gonzales? Tell me why no one has been fired?

The democrats aren't going on Fox because it is a waste of time. Also, because of the shameless ways all of the "commentators" slime and marginalize the democrats.

Fox is what you would call the 28% population of the country. George Bush could abort a child on stage and Fox personalities would remark about how determined and steadfast Bush was in the procedure.

The last election 88% of fox viewers voted for George Bush.

Steve Doocy, THIS IS HUGE!!!!!, claimed that Obama was schooled in a madrassa.

Every Sunday Brit Hume loves the republicans and goes off on the democrats, along with Bill the vampire Kristol and Fred Barnes.

That's not even mentioning Fox's nightly shows of freaky personalities.

They aren't afraid of going on Fox. They are not going on Fox because it will not help them one bit. And it's their decision if you don't like it get over it, it's not happening. Fox is a propaganda tool for the repulicans. Nothing wrong with that but it won't help the democrats one bit.

Lucky: you also believe we invaded Iraq because of a worldwide threat via Saddam

Yes. I could quote Clinton to back me up: "...will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq. His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region and the security of all the rest of us." - President Clinton,

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/

or that we wanted to establish a new democracy

Yes we do. Why do you think we are still there? Do you think we sheparded a new constitution, new government and two elections just for fun?

that the aluminum tubes were for missiles

No, the aluminum tubes were for processing uranium. That intel turned out to be questionable. But thanks for proving you don't know what you're talking about.

"The shipments sparked concern among U.S. intelligence analysts because of the potential use of such tubes in centrifuges, fast-spinning machines used in making enriched uranium for nuclear bombs"

Same old bullshit, over and over again...yet we all know Bush and the rest of his cadre of neocon assholes were lying through their teeth...even Powell.

*Oh, and when will you idiots get off the Clinton jag? He's been out of office for years...and if he was able to run for President today, he'd win by 30 points...and by 60 over little Georgie. (When he left office he carried an approval rating over 50%...and that's after being dragged through the impeachment fiasco. Which should give you a pretty damn good idea of just just how horrible G.W. is.)

Oh, and when will you idiots get off the Clinton jag? He's been out of office for years...and if he was able to run for President today, he'd win by 30 points...and by 60 over little Georgie.

It is amusing to see you moan about people's "Clinton jag" and then turn right around and stick your tongue in the man's ass. In your own words -- the man's been out of office for years. Get over him already.

But the notion that a man who never managed to achieve a simple majority in an election would achieve a 30-point landslide today is even funnier.

Lucky: Fen, Blah, blah, blah, blah. Same old bullshit, over and over again...

No. You made bullshit assertions unsupported by fact, and I bashed them back down. Sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting lalala doesn't change that.

yet we all know Bush and the rest of his cadre of neocon assholes were lying through their teeth

Sure, just like "we all know"... that the aluminum tubes were for missiles. That was hysterical, Lucky - you don't have a grasp of the most basic facts; you don't even know what you're talking about. No wonder our Moonbats rely so heavily on ad hom - actual debate would only showcase their ignorance. Likely the same reason that Dems won't take questions from Brit Hume. I bet you got the aluminum tubes for missiles nonsense from Obama?

when will you idiots get off the Clinton jag? He's been out of office for years

Huh? I didn't bash Clinton, I quoted him because you're a partisan shill who won't accept any statement from a Republican. You claimed Saddam was not a wolrdwide threat, I quoted Clinton in response:

"...will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq. His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region and the security of all the rest of us.

And Lucky, one more time: the aluminum tubes are used for processing enriched uranium, not for missiles. This is one of those times where you're better served by pretending you didn't open your mouth.

Simon, I gotta go with Who's Next. Quadrophenia is really good as well. And while I understand and appreciate the historical significance of Tommy, I have either heard it too much or it has not worn that well over time.

SummaryClaims, facts and figures flew at the second GOP presidential debate of 2008. Not all were true. For example:

Mitt Romney claimed he didn’t raise taxes when he was governor of Massachusetts, failing to note that he increased government fees by hundreds of millions of dollars and shifted some of the state tax burden to the local level.

Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado claimed scientific reports on whether humans are responsible for global warming are split 50-50, which isn’t close to being true.

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee praised a "fair tax" but failed to note that it would ease the burden on the richest Americans while imposing a stiff retail sales tax of perhaps 34 percent.

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani used more statistical dexterity to manipulate statistics, claiming adoptions increased 113 percent when he was mayor. Actually, they peaked and started a continuing decline.

Fen said: "Sure, just like "we all know"... that the aluminum tubes were for missiles. That was hysterical, Lucky - you don't have a grasp of the most basic facts; you don't even know what you're talking about."

Iraqi aluminum tubes conspiracy theory - From Wikipedia

"Aluminum tubes purchased by the nation of Iraq were intercepted in Jordan in 2001. In September 2002 they were publicly cited by the White House as evidence that Iraq was actively pursuing an atomic weapon.

After the Iraq War, it became public that some government analysts thought the tubes were intended as launch tubes for conventional ROCKETS."

"Aluminum tubes purchased by the nation of Iraq were intercepted in Jordan in 2001. In September 2002 they were publicly cited by the White House as evidence that Iraq was actively pursuing an atomic weapon.

After the Iraq War, it became public that some government analysts thought the tubes were intended as launch tubes for conventional ROCKETS."

Also...when will you respond to my question regarding Bush's reasoning for invading Iraq?